Jump to content

MGR Hooper!

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,903 Excellent


Profile Information

  • Location
    : Never really in one place!!

Recent Profile Visitors

6,046 profile views
  1. It's £191.50 from most (if not all) retailers... So the £225.00 RRP is worth it. And as Steven has mentioned above, the Graham Farish 2-car Class 170 has an RRP or £179.99 (£152.96 after discount), pay £38.29 more and you'll get 3 more coaches. That's what most people call a bargain. The full specs of the model haven't been released yet. So we don't know if the motor or DCC interface has been upgraded.
  2. Some would say that's a manufacturer going to great lengths to to achieve a certain level of accuracy. On the flipside, they'd correct the error and leave themselves open to negative feedback from rivet counters. Exactly, if they mess it up, they'll lose not us. Dapol's O gauge range is pretty good. So lets leave the assumptions aside until we actually see something?
  3. It's certainly not uncommon for changes to be made to the tooling after a first EP is made. So I don't understand your concern over the matter. Afterall the first EP is specifically for manufacturers to check the fit and finish of the model.
  4. Gotta admit....I thought Dapol would end up doing the Class 73. Will be interesting to see how well Heljan replicate the shape of the Class 73. Especially the cab roof.
  5. Why not wait until you see the second EP samples that are painted before you judge the model?
  6. First up let me make one thing clear...my initial post about the Class 69 models was wishful thinking a.k.a the rmweb sin of wishlisting. I know what the chances are of actually seeing one. Being in the industry and having friends in the industry gives me a lot more insight into these things. Got it, my mistake...Understood now. I'd direct you back to what I said - I spoke about CAD being modified, not tooling. There's big difference between modifying CAD and modifying tooling. The cost of CAD may not be expensive when compared to tooling cost
  7. Exactly why I'm after a full loco and not just a bodyshell. But thanks to adb for the suggestion...
  8. No intentions of having it being made as a sprung pantograph. It always has been and always will be a poseable one....
  9. Awesome! I'll hopefully get something done soon. Good luck with the venture. I know you're going to do well.
  10. That happened to me with my very first big project as a designer. Almost completed my Class 89 kit and then Accurascale and Rails announced theirs. Can't be upset about it! That's just the way this industry/hobby works...
  11. Always ready to start. Just need some dough to buy a OO gauge Class 68...
  12. I believe so yes.... if that's one way to get someone to do it. I'll gladly sacrifice my time to the Class 88 Gods.
  13. The brass one was added upon request from a couple of clients. What you see is an image from one of the clients. As per feedback the ones in brass are poseable (i.e. movable) as brass is rigid and robust. We'd recommend it being assembled to be fixed. However the client is testing it out this past week and we're hoping to get some more concrete feedback soon. If it is a success we'll design an entire brass kit i.e. pantograph base, insulators and pantograph. However the FUD and FXD variants cannot move as they're resin based and after a few tries the material smoothens out and eventually
  14. Never said that they needed to re-tool the Class 56. It's a superb model as is and if at all any improvements are to be made it's the radiator grilles that need to almost flush with the roof and it probably needs an upgrade to the DCC socket. What I said was with CAD already in existence, it's much cheaper to modify the CAD and then have the tooling slides made to have a Class 69.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.